Standing Committee B

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Energy Bill [Lords]

Clause 181 - Adjustment of transmission charges

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 198, in 
clause 181, page 138, line 38, leave out from 'must' to end of line 46 and insert— 
 '(a) publish a draft of any scheme proposed to be established by the order; 
 (b) publish an assessment of the costs likely to be incurred by different persons in consequence of the order; and 
 (c) consult authorised suppliers and such other persons likely to be affected by the order as he considers appropriate. 
 ( ) An assessment published under subsection (7)(b) must set out, in particular, the Secretary of State's assessment of the likely effect of the order on charges for electricity in Great Britain. 
 ( ) Subsection (7) may be satisfied by publications and consultation taking place wholly or partly before the commencement of this section.'.—[Nigel Griffiths.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Bill O'Brien: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing Government amendment No. 199.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome you back to the Chair most warmly, Mr. O'Brien; it is a pleasure to see you. Before the Committee adjourned this morning, we were hoping for more illumination from the Minister on the background to the amendments. I would like to refer to his ministerial colleague's letter to the Committee—[Interruption.]
 The Chairman: Order. I am trying to listen to the hon. Lady.

Anne McIntosh: I am referring to the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, who is a very busy Minister. It is nice that we have weaned him off his laptop for at least the next hour or so. He was kind enough to write to the Committee on 3 June to explain some of the background to the amendments. Without going into a clause stand part debate, which I hope will be allowed shortly, I shall say why I prefer the original text, which the Government amendments will strike from the Bill.
 Amendment No. 198 will remove clause 181(7) and (8), but I believe that the requirement in those subsections should be imposed on the Government. The Minister spoke briefly this morning about the cost of the requirement. He would be the first to accept, because we have said this at length in this Committee and it has been said from the top to the bottom of the 
 Conservative party on every possible occasion, that we are wedded to deregulation. In fact, the current deregulation provisions were introduced by the last Conservative Government. The Minister need have no concern in that regard. However, I cannot believe that the cost of a requirement to draft and prepare an annual report would be of such an order that it would trouble his Department. 
 In the interlude following the adjournment, I was fortunate enough to hear the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say that every regulatory office has been instructed by the Government to prepare, for every regulation and Bill, a regulatory impact assessment like the one before us this afternoon. They are probably not all so extensive. However, I cannot see in this RIA what, in the view of the Department of Trade and Industry, the precise cost of preparing an annual report would be, so it would be most helpful if this Minister told us. 
 I would like to take issue with a couple of the Minister's other remarks. He did not like the fact that the Lords amendment referred to an affirmative resolution. That is in the context of amendment No. 198. I believe that, if scrutiny stands for anything—it is incumbent on Members of Parliament, whatever position we hold and whether or not we are part of a legislative scrutiny Committee, to ensure that it does—the affirmation resolution procedure provides much more opportunity for scrutiny, a matter that we have pursued in the context of other Bills. The negative resolution procedure is not subject to the same scrutiny and I am disappointed that the Minister is minded to reverse that decision. I hope that he will see fit to stick with the original wording. 
 It is amazing that I have found three issues in the Minister's short remarks with which I disagree, without even trying; I am not usually so disagreeable. The general tendency—[Interruption.] I shall ignore such remarks from a sedentary position. I shall not be baited. The Minister said that the tendency was for energy prices to decrease, but the thrust of every representation that has been made to me, and a careful reading of the Department's RIA, point out clearly that the tendency is for energy prices to increase. I should be interested to know on what factual evidence the Minister reached his conclusion. 
 In the words of the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, the amendments would strike out the requirement for an annual report, which I find deeply regrettable and disappointing, as it won the support of the majority of the House of Lords. The Minister, in his letter to the Committee of 3 June, said that the Government's amendment 
''does not seek to alter in any way the spirit of the original amendment made in the Lords, but simply seeks to improve upon its drafting.'' 
I hope that the Committee is clear that what is proposed is a direct contravention of that statement, as the amendment would reverse the requirement for the publication of a report by affirmative resolution procedure making it a negative resolution procedure. 
 The Minister's letter states that the Government are seeking to overturn the requirement for an annual report,
''as it is considered to be an unnecessary burden on the grounds that we do not believe that the cost of the scheme to consumers will change significantly from year to year and the costs of any scheme will be laid out at the time of applying for it in an impact assessment.'' 
The Minister continued: 
 ''It is also worth noting that any scheme can only have a total duration of five years'' 
and it can be extended for another five years after that, which is already 10 years. In the interests of transparency and close scrutiny, it is advisable to have an annual report. I await further clarification from the Minister, because there is an assumption that an annual report is not needed, and because earlier he referred to the cost as excessive. What is the cost of preparing an annual report? I should also like to know the basis on which the Minister concluded that energy costs would go down, whereas all the evidence is that they will go up.

Andrew Stunell: The amendments relate to three subsections of the clause and there are different considerations to be made in respect of each of them. The first of the two amendments would remove subsections (7) and (8) and substitute a new subsection (7). From the Liberal Democrats' perspective, there is no objection to the inserted words as a replacement for subsection (7), as a sensible and useful tidying-up job. However, we object to the removal of subsection (8), and the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) made a number of the points that I would have made about needing to keep track of what the Secretary of State is up to.
 It is a constant theme of mine, particularly with energy matters, that only so much can be done by announcement and slogan, but real progress is monitored by seeing reports of what has happened and how a scheme is proceeding. I understand the reasoning in the letter that the Minister circulated to us that, in any case, the scheme can last for only five years, but Parliaments last for five years and that does not mean that we do not expect to hear from Ministers in the meantime. That is not the best argument that I have heard for removing an accountability proposal. Therefore, although the new wording of subsection (7) is fine, the absence of wording for subsection (8) is a difficulty. 
 Amendment No. 199 tinkers with the words of subsection (14), and the Minister has contrived to create a misunderstanding between my interpretation and that of the hon. Lady. If I am reading the amendment correctly, the subsection would read: ''The power to make an order containing provision authorised by this section is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.'' Therefore, it seems to me that the order would be subject to affirmative resolution procedure, but the hon. Lady has put forward an equally plausible argument that it would mean exactly the opposite. 
 It would be helpful if the Minister would tell us whether the subsection is as the House of Lords wanted or whether he has advertently or inadvertently 
 reversed that decision. His letter took a good deal of reading, and I fully understand why the hon. Lady had a different interpretation from mine. I want to hear from the Minister a better reason for omitting subsection (8) from the Bill, and I want clarification about the precise intention of subsection (14).

Laurence Robertson: I welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. O'Brien. I shall be brief because, as ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York made a comprehensive speech and advanced many reasons to resist the Government's amendments. The fact that the clause is a diversion from the free market—I am not criticising it for that reason—through the adjustment of transmission charges means that there should be a report about the charges and costs of the scheme. That is not unreasonable. There is a requirement on many authorities, including local and police authorities, to produce reports and strategies. One wonders how they deliver services when they have so many reports and strategies to produce.
 Given the enormous number of civil servants amassed by the Government, I am sure that they can publish a report on the matter. The adjustment of transmission charges is an important issue. It is not asking too much for a report to be produced. Therefore, I am persuaded to vote against the amendment and shall ask my hon. Friends to do the same, unless the Minister comes up with a more convincing argument in his winding-up remarks than he did in his opening remarks.

Nigel Griffiths: I am puzzled. An amendment was made in the other place that was supported by both Opposition parties and opposed by the Government. We have subsequently reconsidered it and accepted it.
 Amendment No. 198 will improve the drafting of subsection (7), which was added on Third Reading by the Opposition. It will also allow the consultation on the power in the clause to take place before the section is commenced. It removes subsection (8), which was inserted by the Opposition to place an annual reporting obligation on the Secretary of State in relation to any scheme. That is the only difference between us. 
 We have accepted the change from negative to affirmative, but we do not accept the additional bureaucracy of yet another annual report. I meet few parliamentary colleagues on both sides who read annual reports. I recognise the value of some of the key annual reports, but others are not studied in detail by the Opposition. The hon. Member for Vale of York asked how much it would cost the public purse to issue a report each year. My answer is too much. 
 The reason is fairly straightforward. The Opposition now want another annual report and yet another set of regulations. This is yet another piece of bureaucracy that they are trying to force on us. If I had some faith that they would do more than they did with the 3,100 or so regulations that were introduced last 
 year, I might believe that they were scrutinising the legislation when they sounded off about red tape. Yet of those regulations the Conservatives objected not to 3,000 of them or indeed to 300 of them, but closer to 30 of them. The biggest chunk of those 3,100 regulations related to road closures, yet the Opposition could not be bothered to get up, and they opposed only 42 of them. I therefore want a cast-iron guarantee.

Laurence Robertson: On a point of order, Mr O'Brien. Is this really relevant to what we are discussing?

Bill O'Brien: That is not a point of order for me, but a matter for those who respond to the Minister.

Nigel Griffiths: If I was convinced that the Opposition, in wanting to bolt into this Bill the additional bureaucracy and cost to the taxpayer of producing a report, would not then add it to the list of so-called crimes of bureaucracy committed by this Government, I might accept the amendment.

Brian White: I serve on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and therefore read them all, so will my hon. Friend the Minister explain why the Tories never turn up to the Regulatory Reform Committee if they are so committed to anti-bureaucratic measures?

Bill O'Brien: Order. We are moving away from the spirit of the amendment.

Nigel Griffiths: I do not want to add any unkind remarks or politicise this in any way. I am grateful to you, Mr. O'Brien, for allowing me to return to the substance of the debate.
 Amendment No. 198 does not seek to alter the spirit of the original amendment made in the House of Lords, except to remove the annual reporting requirement on the Secretary of State. It will reinstate the ability to consult on the use of the power before it is commenced. The Lords made no objection to consultation before then. We believe that the power was accidentally removed by the Opposition amendment. Perhaps hon. Members might like to correct me and tell me that they will table a better amendment on Report. Our amendment simply cleans up the drafting put forward by the Lords. 
 Amendment No. 199 amends subsection (14), which states that the power will be commenced through an affirmative resolution; it is a drafting change to bring the subsection into line with parliamentary convention, which we are happy to endorse. 
 In short, we are determined to ensure that the amendments give practical purpose to one of the amendments that was not initially included in the Bill, but which the other place suggested as an improvement. On the question of the annual report, we do not intend to go down the road of producing even more paper and bureaucracy. Even if that reply has not satisfied the Opposition, I hope that it satisfies my hon. Friends. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 38, in 
clause 181, page 139, line 7, leave out subsection (11).— [Mr. Weir.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 15.

Amendment made: No. 199, in 
clause 181, page 139, line 30, leave out 'An order under' and insert 
 'The power to make an order containing provision authorised by'.—[Nigel Griffiths.] 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Stunell: I have had a couple of false starts on this, so I shall try to get it right this time. This clause is an important gateway to developing renewable projects and I shall certainly support it, despite the changes that have been made. However, the clause is nevertheless very limited in what it can achieve, with its references to particular areas of the United Kingdom and the short periods of time for which the schemes can be enforced. That was the subject of a number of contributions to this morning's sitting, and a number of Government Members powerfully made the point that it will take longer than 10 years for a scheme to come to fruition and mature. The renewable period of five years also introduces another layer of uncertainty and unpredictability, which makes investment more difficult to achieve.
 The Minister rather brushed away the differences in the benefit to be achieved by a scheme from the renewables obligation on the one hand and the benefit to be achieved by the operation of clause 181 on the 
 other. There is, in fact, a very substantial—some might say huge—differential in benefit to schemes under the renewables obligation and under clause 181. The sheer cliff that schemes being introduced under clause 181 will face at the end of their five or 10 years will be a major handicap to getting schemes running as the Minister, and, I think, hon. Members from both sides of the Committee would want to see. 
 The clause is certainly better than no clause at all, but it has in-built, inherent defects. I should not be at all surprised to find either that very few schemes come forward under it and/or that the Minister comes back and says that, after mature reflection, we need transitional arrangements at the end of the 10-year period to provide a softer landing and more certainty for those who intend to invest under it. I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of those comments and come back with better suggestions on Report.

Calum MacDonald: I want briefly to support what the hon. Gentleman has just said and to reiterate what I said in the earlier debate. This clause is tremendously important not only for those of us in the north of Scotland who want to see renewable generation take off there, but for the whole country and the Government, who want to meet their environmental targets. Without renewables taking off substantially in the north of Scotland, it is difficult to see how the Government can meet their targets for 2010 and 2020.
 As I said earlier, I have serious worries that the sunset provision in clause 181 will act against those targets and that companies that are thinking of investing in renewables in the highlands and islands will be put off by the fact that the charging arrangement in the market within which they will be trying to operate will change radically after 10 years. Their planning will therefore be confronted with the big uncertainty that will happen after 10 years when the sunset provision comes into effect and when the transmission charging regime in the north of Scotland will become the same as in the rest of the country. Given the feedback about the worries of uncertainties in the market that we receive all the time from companies that are thinking of investing in renewables, this further uncertainty in 10 or 20 years will undermine the incentive to invest in renewables in the north. 
 While I appreciate the Minister's point about changes in technology and circumstances, they would be better taken account of by having a five-year review rather than a sunset provision. I take on board what he said, but the Government will have to keep an eye on the situation. If, over the next few months, industry says that there is a serious problem, the Government will have to respond quickly and readily.

Anne McIntosh: I request clarification from the Minister about the contents of clause 181, which, it will come as no surprise to him, I support. Will there be
 implications for other locations? I asked earlier but he did not have an answer. Will clause 181 apply to a renewable proposal in other parts of the country?
 I am taken by the factual position set out in the regulatory impact assessment. Paragraph 5.322 on page 138 states: 
 ''Given the uncertainties about the future level of TNUoS generation tariffs in the coming years and, as a result, the exact location of new renewable build, it is presently very difficult to estimate with confidence the extent of any impact of comparatively high tariffs on the likelihood of successfully meeting the Government's 10 per cent. target.'' 
Pursuant to that, according to the explanatory notes, subsection (2)(b) requires for 
''any costs arising from the scheme to be spread across all GB supply companies.'' 
Whereas the renewables obligations under clause 181 will apply primarily only in Scotland, it is extraordinary that costs arising from the scheme will be spread across all Great Britain supply companies, despite other parts of the country not necessarily receiving any benefit. 
 The table on page 144 of the regulatory impact assessment shows that the zonal tariffs of the northern highlands, Peterhead, the western highlands, and Skye and Quoich are excessively high. The zonal tariff of the northern highlands is three times that of northern England, which is staggering. I seek clarification from the Minister on those points.

Desmond Turner: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) in asking the Minister to think again about subsection (10), which spells out the sunset provision. It must be a deterrent to potential investors, who have to work on a 20-year time scale. The Government do not need subsection (10) and the specific sunset provision to allow them the freedom to review the situation as market conditions change—subsection (11) would do that. I would advocate the removal of the limitation of only one period of renewal from that clause, because a five-yearly renewal gives the Government ample opportunity to respond to changes in conditions.

Andrew Stunell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just 10 years from the commencement of a scheme, but 10 years from the commencement of the section, so that a scheme might be chopped off much more quickly than within 10 years?

Desmond Turner: Yes, I quite agree. I think that I made the same point before lunch. I ask my hon. Friends to reconsider the matter; we do not need that sunset clause.

Michael Weir: I shall be brief, as I made these points in an earlier speech. I agree with the hon. Members for Western Isles and for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). There is rare cross-party agreement on the fact that the sunset clause is an impediment to the development of renewable energy. If Ministers want to have a review, a five-year review without the inclusion of the sunset clause could achieve the same objective. As I understand it, new primary legislation will be
 required to amend the provision at the end of the 10-year period, so it will be much more difficult to react quickly to changing events. I urge the Minister, as he has been urged by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, to look again at the matter before consideration on Report.

Nigel Griffiths: I welcome the qualified support for the clause. In response to the comments made by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, I can say that we do not need to wait to the end of a 10-year term before introducing primary legislation to tackle the matter. Obviously, if unforeseen problems arose at any time during that period, there would be nothing to stop any Government or hon. Member from introducing legislation that they thought was necessary.
 Let me spell out the position once again for the hon. Member for Vale of York. As is made clear in the Bill, and as I believe is made clear in our helpful briefing, and in the House of Commons Library briefing on the Bill, the clause and arrangement apply specifically to one area—the north of Scotland. If Parliament wants to make provisions to cover other areas, it should feel free to do so. 
 I have carefully noted the comments of my hon. Friends and of hon. Members, particularly those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles. I know that I can rely on him to keep us informed and in touch with local views and the local impact of the provisions. I am sure that the excellent service that he provides for his community and constituents will allow us to react as quickly as is necessary to any unforeseen contingencies.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the Minister, both for his reply and for giving way. The Minister said clearly that if Parliament wanted to make provision for another area, it should feel free to do so. Is he therefore saying that primary legislation will be required in that regard? Will he also reply to my query in relation to subsection (2)(b)—whether any costs arising from the scheme will be spread across all GB supply companies?

Nigel Griffiths: The answer to both the hon. Lady's questions is yes. I hope that that clarifies the position for her.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 181, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 182 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 183 - Payments of sums raised by fossil fuel levy

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 218, in page 139, line 43, at end insert—
 (1A) The total of amounts directed to be paid under this section must not exceed £10,000,000 or such higher figure as may be specified in an order under this section.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 219, in page 140, line 21, at end add—
 '(7) In section 7 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 (c.30) (use of certain money held by Gas and Electricity Markets Authority), at the end of subsection (2) add— 
 ''or such higher figure as may be specified in an order under section 183 of the Energy Act 2004.'' 
 (8) An order under this section, which may raise the cash limit in subsection (1A) above or section 7(2) of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 or both, is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.'.

Andrew Stunell: Clause 183 concerns what should happen to the money raised from the fossil fuel levy, which is the leftover from the non-fossil fuel levy as amended in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, and also what should happen to the money accumulated via the Scottish renewables obligation, which is the parallel mechanism north of the border.
 The provision in clause 183(1) relating to the Scottish moneys has no ceiling or cap on the amount of money that should be reinvested in renewables. That contrasts with the situation south of the border, where the Sustainable Energy Act has a ceiling of £60 million. I am indebted to the Renewable Power Association for bringing the matter to my attention and for a certain amount of technical help—it is obviously a complex matter. Basically, there is a new provision north of the border to deal with the surplus arising from the Scottish equivalent of the fossil-fuel levy—the Scottish renewables obligation—that has no ceiling on the amount of money that can be reinvested in renewables. Many might say that that is a good thing. On the other hand, the Bill maintains that there should continue to be a cap south of the border of £60 million; that is to say, it is silent on changing any of the provisions of the Sustainable Energy Act. 
 The problem would not really matter, except for the fact that, south of the border, a substantial surplus is building up. The fossil fuel levy is generating in excess of £60 million per year, and one estimate is that by 2010, there will be £350 million in the fund, of which only £60 million will have been taken out and invested in renewables, that being the limiting factor set by the Sustainable Energy Act. On the other hand, north of the border, where it is estimated that perhaps £7 million or £8 million a year will accumulate, there is no restriction on a 100 per cent. investment in the renewables industry. 
 Amendments Nos. 218 and 219 would have two contrasting effects. Amendment No. 218 says that if the Government believe that there should be a cap south of the border, the Bill should contain a cap north of the border, as it is illogical to have an open-ended investment programme north of the border and a capped investment programme south of the order. Amendment No. 219 would mean no cap on either side of the border. In terms of obtaining more investment in the renewables industry, that is the better alternative. In other words, it says that the cap of £60 million being reinvested in renewables should be lifted, allowing all the money generated north and south of the border, both by the fossil fuel levy and the Scottish renewable obligation, to be reinvested in the 
 renewables industry. As I understand it, that was the original intention when the arrangements to wind up the non-fossil fuel obligation were being considered during the passage of the Sustainable Energy Act. 
 I hope that that explanation was sufficiently transparent. The amendments are alternatives, and are probing the Government's intention, and I ask that the Government's response give full consideration to the need to reinvest all the benefits of the two obligations back into the renewables industry, which I would have thought is what the Government intended in the first place.

Nigel Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful suggestions in amendments Nos. 218 and 219. The amendments seek to bring together the approach taken to limit the funds for Scotland, on the one hand, and England and Wales, on the other. In principle, that is, of course, a reasonable idea, but there are specific reasons why we want to maintain separate approaches, not least the fact that the powers to spend beyond a set limit, which this proposal would remove from Scottish Ministers, involve very small sums. They are estimated at under £4 million per annum and may be considerably less than that.
 Given the small scale of the sums, it would not make much sense to limit Scottish Ministers' powers over the fund in this way, and it would give rise to resentment and accusations that neither the hon. Gentleman nor I would wish to have to deal with in the context of devolution. If the sums were far higher and the principle at stake more important, I might be inclined towards his view, but I hope that, after making that brief argument, which I am willing to expand on for the benefit of the Committee, I have persuaded him to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment No. 219 would raise the limit on the amounts that the Secretary of State can, under the Sustainable Energy Act, direct for use on renewable energy. Apart from the need to keep up a £30 million reserve, no decisions have been taken on the use of the sums that the Secretary of State can direct for use on renewables. The England and Wales fund stands at just over £150 million, and there is a £60 million limit on the amounts that the Secretary of State can direct for use on renewables. We have only recently legislated, through the Sustainable Energy Act, on the use of £60 million of the fossil fuel levy surplus to promote energy from renewable sources to meet the Government's energy White Paper commitment to increase funds for renewables capital grants by a further £60 million. 
 I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that at this stage the amendment is unnecessary. We have demonstrated our commitment to renewables through our renewable energy policies and programmes, and we will continue to do so. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, he feels, even if he is not wholly satisfied, able to withdraw amendment No. 218 and not press amendment No. 219 to a vote.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure that he will have detected that, in advancing these two alternatives, I prefer the second to the first. The last thing that I would want to do is tread on the toes of colleagues north of the border, given their proper sensitivities about devolution. However, I am interested in his concept that £4 million is too trivial a sum for the Committee to worry about. I shall bear that remark in mind when I have suggestions to make on spending very small sums as he has just defined them. I shall not press the amendment.
 I am not so satisfied, however, with what the Minister said on amendment No. 219. I understood him to say that the fund stands at £150 million and the only authorised expenditure from it is the £60 million under the Sustainable Energy Act, with the rest simply lying fallow and building up at a rate of more than £60 million a year in addition—in due course, to a total of about £350 million. Indeed, judging by the figures that he gave, the money could be accumulating even more rapidly. 
 The Minister's answer that the Government have given earnest of good intent is not very satisfactory. In fact, they are being miserly with that money and it is not being spent. It is being accumulated far more rapidly than the Secretary of State is approving proposals. I have in mind the fact that, next Tuesday, we shall hear about the Chancellor's three-year spending review. I imagine that he is looking round the shelves in the larder to see what pennies are at the bottom of the jars, and I fear that he will shake out this jar and use the money for something else completely. I therefore say to the Minister, and through him to the Secretary of State, that they must keep a tight hold of that jam jar and ensure that the resources that have been accumulated in this way are ultimately and fairly quickly ploughed into the renewable generation industry. 
 When investment funds are not easy to come by, it seems paradoxical that we already have £80 million unspent and unspendable in the fund, building up at £60 million a year. Yet although we are considering a Bill that notionally is about improving our energy policy, the Minister does not see fit to find a mechanism for releasing that money. I may wish to come back to this on Report. In the meantime, I hope that the Minister thinks carefully about the issue and will perhaps make his own proposals at that stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 183 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 184 - Power to impose charges to fund energy functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for this opportunity to question the Minister. We are told that the clause relates to the imposition of charges and allows for a
 consistent and transparent charging regime applied by the Secretary of State to be put in place to cover a range of energy services. The activities relating to oil and gas are a reserved matter. The Secretary of State is responsible for their administration for the whole United Kingdom and its waters, except the Isle of Man onshore and the waters of Northern Ireland offshore.
 We heard earlier that the Minister is keen not to waste taxpayers' money, and he would not put a figure on the cost of an annual report—he felt that it would be an unnecessary burden—yet paragraph 6.24 of the regulatory impact assessment states: 
 ''There will be cost implications of budgetary control on both a resource and a cash basis (probably monthly) and the additional input to the other resource bidding and monitoring processes''. 
Paragraph 6.25 states: 
 ''DTI staff and overhead costs including a notional accommodation cost would be £45K per annum.'' 
Paragraph 6.27 states: 
 ''Overall, the costs to industry and the DTI are estimated to be £1.9M and £45K respectively.'' 
I humbly submit that £1.9 million is not an inconsequential sum. The Minister is imposing that burden, so can he help the Committee by explaining his definition of a regulatory burden? Why is an annual report deemed to be a costly regulatory burden, although he did not see fit to put a figure on it? Here we are told that there will be a burden on industry of £1.9 million per annum. That seems to me to be a regulatory burden. I wonder whether he agrees.

Anne Picking: Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us what energy functions relating to the oil and gas industry he has in mind for possible changes? Will he give an assurance that he will consult the industry fully about any proposals for charges and assess whether they would impact on the important policy of ensuring maximum recovery of oil and gas from the North sea?

Nigel Griffiths: I am amazed that the hon. Member for Vale of York, with her knowledge of Library documents, has not sought an indication of the cost of various annual reports. In the absence of that, we are doing it at this moment and will let her know the costs.
 Certain sums have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) put words in my mouth, which is a Liberal tactic I am afraid. I did not mention the word ''trivial'' in relation to £3 million or £4 million. I would appreciate it if the Liberals did not use their slightly-less-than-honest by-election tactics against me. I did not say that it was an insignificant sum.

Andrew Stunell: Will the Minister give way?

Nigel Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman apologises for saying that I said it was a trivial sum, I will happily give way.

Andrew Stunell: I am certainly prepared to accept that the Minister did not use the word ''trivial'', but he took a trivial attitude. He said that he did not think the
 matter merited consideration in the Bill because the sum was too small, which I interpreted as trivial. I apologise to him, and to you, Mr. O'Brien, if that was a misuse of the word ''trivial''.

Nigel Griffiths: That gets us back on a nice, even keel where we understand each other.
 The important issue is the Government policy to charge for services where appropriate to ensure that resources are allocated efficiently. This ensures that the general taxpayer does not bear those costs that should properly be borne by the users who benefit from the service. 
 The clause is an enabling power only; it will allow for secondary legislation to be put before the House under the negative resolution procedure should new charges be decided on. Such decisions would, of course, be taken after compliance with the Cabinet Office's latest best practice guidance on the introduction of new regulations, including stakeholder consultation. Any changes in the service could be introduced only to recover the Government's direct costs in providing that service. The clause allows us to do that. 
 I do not believe that even some in the industry will think that an unreasonable approach. Should the enabling power be approved by the House and not be negatived by any hon. Member, as it could be, any costs involved would be considered reasonable. 
 In response to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking), new charges may be levied on several functions—for example, the approval of field development plans or environmental inspections, drilling consents or pipeline authorisations, metering inspections and flaring issues. The industry will be fully consulted on any new charges. The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association was consulted on plans to include the clause in the Bill and it accepted our logic. 
 Having raised the issue, my hon. Friend will want to track its impact on behalf of her constituents who may be affected and the two power stations in her constituency in which she takes a keen interest. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services and I will be keen to hear from our hon. Friend if there is any deleterious effect as a result of the proposal, but we do not believe that there will be. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 184 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 185 - Power to modify Petroleum Act 1998

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: My understanding is that we are being asked to modify, and therefore repeal, parts of the Petroleum Act 1998. This is an exciting part of the
 Bill because it relates to the role of interconnectors, which are at an advanced and positive stage, in the provision of energy to this country. Perhaps the Minister would confirm what the role of interconnectors will be. Bearing in mind that we will increasingly become a net importer of energy over the coming years, interconnectors will have a great impact.
 The regulatory impact assessment refers to the Norwegian interconnector and I understand that an interconnector agreement is also being negotiated with the Netherlands. Those are the two primary interconnector agreements. Will the Minister explain our position? The piping in of energy has implications for other aspects of energy policy, particularly the large combustion plant directive and the expected forthcoming announcement from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We need an assurance that energy being imported through those pipelines will be as clean as domestically produced energy. 
 We heard earlier about exposed overhead pylons, particularly in the north of Scotland. In my experience the elements can be just as perverse and destructive in the north of England—we had no electricity for three days over the new year. What protection is there for pipelines and interconnectors against the natural elements and a possible terrorist attack? The Committee must be aware that we will become increasingly dependent on interconnectors, such as those coming into the east of England. There is talk of French energy workers going on strike and, if they did, that would have a huge impact on the supply of energy, particularly to the south of England. 
 The clause is extremely welcome. It goes to the heart of the future of the Government's energy policy, particularly for electricity companies developing ventures with Norway and the Netherlands. I await the Minister's reply with anticipation.

Nigel Griffiths: A number of existing agreements between the United Kingdom and other states relate to the production and/or conveyance of petroleum by pipeline to or from areas over which other states exercise sovereign rights. Most are with Norway, but there are also agreements with Ireland, the Netherlands and Belgium. In its present form, power under the Petroleum Act to make decisions in UK waters rests with the Secretary of State alone. As we move to import a greater proportion of our energy supplies, the new power in this clause will ensure that we are able to give full and appropriate effect to international agreements to further our aim of keeping energy supplies secure and reliable.
 The clause provides the power for the Government to modify the Petroleum Act by Order in Council to give effect to international agreements relating in whole or part to the construction, operation, use, decommissioning, or abandonment of an offshore gas or oil installation or pipeline. The extension of the 
 powers is necessary to reflect the international scope of British energy supplies. I hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 185 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 186 - Application of general duties to part 4 functions etc.

Amendment made: No. 191, in 
clause 186, page 144, line 10, leave out subsection (3).—[Dr. Desmond Turner.] 
Clause 186, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 187 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 188 - Powers exercisable by statutory instrument

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister, in his helpful summing-up remarks to the debate on clause 185, referred to the fact that the Government intend to use an Order in Council. I hope that the—[Interruption.]

Bill O'Brien: Order. Can we have some quiet please?

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown on his victory, which seems to have escaped most members of the Committee, but I am sure that after our proceedings, we shall go away and do our homework. I share the excitement at his success at having his amendment endorsed by the Minister; I think that that is a first for the Committee.
 As we had a little debate on groups of amendments referring to the use of affirmative resolutions—both for amendment No. 219, which was moved by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and the earlier amendment No. 119 that was successfully moved—I should like to point out that it is always preferable to debate the regulatory impacts of the Bill. We were told by the Minister that he, his Government and his Department intend to use the Order in Council extensively and lavishly to push through the extension of powers required to vary the Petroleum Act 1998. I would make a humble plea that the Minister consider more lavish use of the affirmative procedure for the reasons that I set out earlier. 
 Those of us from both sides of the House who take our scrutiny role seriously believe that there is more scope to give detailed scrutiny of such an extension of powers through affirmative resolution procedure than through the negative resolution procedure. To respond to earlier remarks about no-shows in certain quarters, when Orders in Council are being scrutinised, I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) when I say that we are the most assiduous Members, taking 
 every opportunity to scrutinise any statutory instrument. However, we would particularly welcome the opportunity to scrutinise an Order in Council by the affirmative resolution procedure. Will the Minister reconsider his view?

Nigel Griffiths: Of course, I would not question the diligence of the hon. Lady and her hon. Friend in such matters. I undertake to consider whether an affirmative resolution is more appropriate than a negative resolution in matters appertaining to this Bill.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 188 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 189 to 193 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 23 agreed to.

Clause 194 - Short title, commencement and extent

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 221, in
clause 194, page 149, line 43, at end insert—
 '( ) Sections 91, 92, 131, 134(1), 136(1), 165 and 173 shall, unless previously commenced under subsection (2), come into force nine months after the passing of this Act.'.
 The amendment relates to the coming into force of the Bill. At present, subsection (2) has the standard provision that the sections should come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State. The amendment proposes a backstop date nine months after the Act is passed. 
 As we know from our debate on clause 181, the statutory time limits run from the commencement of the relevant sections of the Bill. As the various sections can be commenced individually, that means a series of separate starting dates, which in some cases will trigger separate finishing dates, or sunset clauses. 
 We believe that the Bill should become an Act, and that it should come into force as soon as is practicable. We recognise that certain things have still to be sorted out; the draft provisions for licences and so on have not yet been published and there will inevitably be delays and some overlap. The amendment is designed to tease out of the Minister when the Act will be fully implemented. We say that all sections should be in force within nine months of the Bill's being enacted, and we look forward to what the Minister has to say on the topic. We should be even more pleased if he accepted the amendment as his own backstop provision.

Nigel Griffiths: I accept that the Act should be in force as soon as is practicable, when all views on its impact have been considered. The Bill that emerges from our considerations is not the same as the Bill that went in, which is the proper democratic process. The measure has been improved in some ways, but it has not met with the sort of approval that I wanted in others. I want to ensure that all those involved in a vital sector of the economy—consumers, consumer organisations and others who might be affected by the Bill—have time to give us feedback, which will allow
 us to choose a date for enactment, not a fixed date, that reflects that information. However, I accept that the hon. Gentleman has not chosen an arbitrary date. He agrees with me that we want the measure to be enacted as soon as is practicable, but we also want to ensure that all the consequences have been considered when the Bill leaves the Committee and the House. I hope that I have persuaded him to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Stunell: The Minister has somewhat reassured us and we would not want to truncate the process of consultation on the Bill and its implementation, especially in view of the changes already made and those that may be made on Report. I will not press the amendment, but I urge the Minister not to lose the momentum and to ensure that the Bill is fully enacted at the earliest practicable moment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
clause 194, page 150, line 8, leave out subsection (5).
 The amendment simply removes the privilege amendment inserted in the Bill in the other place. The privilege amendment is a procedural amendment, which I am advised is no longer necessary. As hon. Members will be aware, it is the privilege of the House of Commons to control charges on public funds, and the amendment reminds us that that privilege has not been infringed in the other place.

Anne McIntosh: I am not as familiar as the Minister with the ways of the other place, so would he be good enough to explain what has happened since the amendment was made in the Lords, presumably with Government support, and why it is deemed to be no longer necessary? Under various aspects of the Bill, and as is set out in great detail in the regulatory impact assessment, there will be a charge.

Bill O'Brien: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. According to the rules of the House:
 ''Where the Lords have inserted the privilege disclaimer as the last subsection of the last clause of a Bill, the scope of debate on the amendment to remove it is confined to question of whether the Commons should maintain their claim of financial privilege.'' 
The Minister is saying that the Lords have no issue with the financing of the Bill. It is a question of procedure. Further information can be obtained if the hon. Lady so wishes, but those are the rules given to us. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 194, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 7 - Reports under section 1 of Sustainable Energy Act 2003

'(1) Section 1 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 (c.30) (annual reports on progress towards sustainable energy aims) is amended as follows.
 (2) After subsection (1) insert— 
 ''(1A) The report must include, in particular, all such information as the Secretary of State considers appropriate about— 
 (a) things done during the reporting period for the purposes of the development of any of the energy sources or technologies mentioned in subsection (1B); 
 (b) things done during that period for the purpose of ensuring the maintenance of the scientific and engineering expertise available in the United Kingdom that is necessary for the development of potential energy sources (including sources of nuclear energy); and 
 (c) things done during that period for the purpose of achieving the energy efficiency aims designated under sections 2 and 3. 
 (1B) The energy sources and technologies referred to in subsection (1A)(a) are— 
 (a) clean coal technology; 
 (b) biomass; 
 (c) biofuels; 
 (d) fuel cells; 
 (e) photovoltaics; 
 (f) wave and tidal generation; 
 (g) hydrogeneration; 
 (h) microgeneration; 
 (i) geothermal sources; and 
 (j) other sources of energy, and technologies for the production of energy, the use of which would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, cut the United Kingdom's carbon emissions. 
 (1C) The references in subsection (1A) to things done during the reporting period include references to proposals of the Secretary of State published during that period.'' 
 (3) In subsection (2) for ''subsection (1)'' substitute ''subsections (1) to (1C)''.'.—[Nigel Griffiths.] 
 Brought up, and read the First and Second time. 
 Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause, 
 (a), in line 19, at end insert— 
 '(aa) coal mine methane;'. 
 —[Paddy Tipping.] 
 Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to. 
 Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New Clause 3 - Renewable Energy Authority

'(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Renewable Energy Authority (''the REA''). 
 (2) The REA is not to be treated— 
 (a) except so far as necessary for the purposes of its function in promoting the development and deployment of renewables set out in subsection (3), as performing any duty or exercising any power on behalf of the Crown; or 
 (b) as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown; and the REA's property is not to be regarded as property of the Crown, or as held on behalf of the Crown. 
 (3) The REA shall incorporate the Carbon Trust and shall— 
 (a) promote research and development in renewable energy by grant or contract as is appropriate, and 
 (b) promote the commercial deployment of renewable energy. 
 (4) The REA shall be funded from sums paid to it by the Secretary of State.'.—[Dr. Desmond Turner.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Desmond Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4—Constitution of the REA—
 '(1) The REA— 
 (a) shall consist of not fewer than seven and not more than thirteen members; and 
 (b) shall have a membership comprising both non-executive members and executive members. 
 (2) The non-executive members shall be— 
 (a) a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State; and 
 (b) a number of other persons appointed by the Secretary of State (after consultation with the chairman); and (subject to subsection (1)) it is for the Secretary of State to determine how many non-executive members there are to be in addition to the chairman. 
 (3) The executive members shall be— 
 (a) a person appointed by the non-executive members to be the REA's chief executive; and 
 (b) the other persons (if any) appointed by them (after consultation with the chief executive) to be executive members in addition to the chief executive; 
 and it is for the non-executive members to determine (subject to subsection (8)) whether there are to be executive members in addition to the chief executive, and (if so) how many. 
 (4) The approval of the Secretary of State is required for the appointment of the chief executive. 
 (5) Before— 
 (a) appointing a person to be the chairman or otherwise to be a non-executive member of the REA, or 
 (b) approving the appointment of a person to be the chief executive, the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers. 
 (6) Subsection (5) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the commencement of this section. 
 (7) If there are executive members in addition to the chief executive, each must be a member of the staff of the REA. 
 (8) Where the Secretary of State so provides by a direction to the REA, the non-executive members must secure that the number of executive members in addition to the chief executive— 
 (a) is not less than the minimum set by the direction; and 
 (b) does not exceed the maximum so set; and the direction must not set a maximum of more than three. 
 (9) The Secretary of State must exercise his powers under this section to secure, so far as practicable, that the number of executive members is at all times less than the number of non-executive members.'. 
New clause 5—REA: powers for carrying out functions— 
 '(1) The REA shall have power, for the purposes of carrying out its functions, to do all such things as appear to it to be likely to facilitate the carrying out of its functions, or to be incidental to carrying them out. 
 (2) The powers of the REA include, in particular— 
 (a) the power to promote research and development in renewable energy by grant or contract as is appropriate, and 
 (b) the power to promote the commercial deployment of renewable energy.'. 
New clause 6—REA: Strategy for carrying out functions— 
 '(1) It shall be the duty of the REA— 
 (a) to prepare its strategy for carrying out its functions; and 
 (b) from time to time to revise that strategy. 
 (2) The strategy prepared must include both— 
 (a) the REA's strategy for promoting research and development in renewable energy by grant or contract as is appropriate; and 
 (b) its strategy for promoting the commercial deployment of renewable energy.'.

Desmond Turner: We have completed our discussions of the amendments to the Bill so we can relax a little, but these new clauses make a serious point, so I do not want the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) to get over-excited. The new clauses could be described as being serious and probing in nature, but probing none the less.
 The new clauses represent the final policy plank that the Science and Technology Committee, on which I served, put forward in its report last year on the subject of moving towards a non-carbon fuel economy. We identified three principal policy legs to provide the mechanism to achieve the Government's declared climate change objective of renewable energy being deployed at 10 per cent. by 2010. We are all familiar with that. However, it will not happen by accident—there must be mechanisms to make it happen. 
 The amendment concerning fiscal regimes, which was moved in my absence last Thursday, contained one of those mechanisms: a proposal to replace the present renewables obligation regime with a carbon tax and carbon tax credit system to provide the fiscal incentives for the development of renewable energy, clearing the potential hurdles, as we did with the amendment on the statutory duties of the Secretary of State and the regulator. I was not criticising the regulator, but if the regulator were to take as read the statutory duties included in the Bill as currently drafted, that would be disadvantageous, as we know from recent experience—until the past few months, when the regulatory regime fortunately changed. 
 The final recommendation was the establishment of a renewable energy authority. The Bill already—quite rightly—establishes a nuclear decommissioning authority. That important and complex job must be done, and I agree that it is best done by a dedicated authority. In tabling proposed new clause 3, we suggest that deploying renewable energy is just as important in the current context as nuclear decommissioning. It is possibly more important, because if we do not deploy renewable energy as we need to at the rate at which we need to, we will not fulfil our climate change objectives. 
 Just as, after the war, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was set up to drive through the establishment of nuclear power stations, so we could usefully establish a dedicated renewable energy authority, which would subsume the responsibilities of several bodies that currently exist—for example, parts of the DTI, and the Carbon Trust—and their budgets, and bring all their functions together in one body. Its sole purpose would be to drive the deployment of renewable energy from research and development through to deployment on the ground or in the water, as appropriate. There would be savings in administrative costs, because there would be one agency instead of several separate administrations, as at present, but more importantly there would be a critical mass that would produce results. I shall not press the proposed new clauses to a vote; they are probing, but with serious intent. I commend the policy of a renewable energy authority to the Minister as worthy of consideration.

Joan Walley: I welcome you back to the proceedings, Mr. O'Brien, which seem to be going along at great pace this afternoon. I want to speak briefly to the proposed new clauses that have been moved by my hon. Friend. I am slightly relieved to hear that he is not going to press them to a vote.
 I want to take the opportunity to obtain more information from the Minister on the progress that the DTI has made and is making in respect of delivering on the whole agenda. How will we get a dedicated policy to deal with renewable energy? I am not sure whether it should be a renewable energy authority as such, or whether in the short or medium term we could set up a sustainable energy policy agency. Such an agency was recommended by the Environmental Audit Committee in our 2001-02 report, entitled ''A sustainable energy strategy? Renewables and the PIU Review''. 
 We must be assured that we are finding a way to promote the development and deployment of renewables. The new clauses would incorporate the Carbon Trust and ensure the commercial deployment of renewable energy. The Carbon Trust does a good job, but how much more could we do if we brought all the different strands together under one authority or one agency? We want to see a greater take-up of the available renewable energy. There is a feeling that we are not progressing quickly enough. 
 Could the Minister give us more information about the progress that the Government have made? I refer him to the Government's response to the Environmental Audit Committee's report, which said: 
 ''The Government does not believe that we need new structures or organisations to support the delivery of the ambitious programme, as set out in the Energy White Paper. Instead, the Government will strengthen the analytical and strategic capability of the DTI in the area of energy policy. This will serve as the focal point of a network—a Sustainable Energy Policy Network—of departmental policy units that will be involved in delivering the White Paper's commitments.'' 
The agenda has moved on. The Environmental Audit Committee's eighth report of 2002-03 points out that there are many split responsibilities. We have already heard how the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has responsibility for energy efficiency. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for planning permissions, and the DTI has a focus on energy policy, but it is not alone. 
 If we could move more quickly towards a dedicated authority that could bring all these strands together, we would be in a much better position to exploit the commercial adaptation of renewables that we want to see. That would take us much more quickly on the way towards the carbon-free economy that we want and to meeting our renewable targets. There is no coherent overview of how we deliver policy on renewables. These new clauses give the Minister an opportunity to provide an update of how he is adding more coherence to delivery on renewables. We want to see progress on this issue as quickly as possible.

Richard Page: I warm to these new clauses, but to give justice to their contents would take a great deal of time. The
 Committee will be delighted to know that I do not intend to go through them all in great detail. We have plenty of time. I understand that another two days of Committee stretch ahead of us, so it is not as if we are coming up against any time barriers. I hope that the Committee is relaxed about that.
 We have to ask the basic question: why have these new clauses been tabled at all? It is not as if they are small amendments pushed in to get and elucidate information. Nearly two pages are covered with the details of the new clauses, so they were not thought up on the back of an envelope. The hon. Members involved are making a serious point. We must ask why new clause 3 is designed to establish a renewable energy authority? Why does the new clause incorporate the Carbon Trust? New clause 4 relates to the setting up of the board and its secretarial functions. It is just about the way in which the body should operate. 
 New clause 5 is the guts of the thing and it refers in particular to 
''the power to promote research and development in renewable energy by grant or contract as is appropriate''. 
Why have that new clause and that point been included? In proposing that there be a new authority to promote research and development, are the hon. Members saying to the Government that they are not happy with what Government are doing in that area? New clause 5(2)(b) refers to 
''the power to promote the commercial deployment of renewable energy.'' 
Again, why is that provision there? Have the Government not got, somewhere in the whole area of their activity, the power to do all those things? 
 Why have three responsible, senior, important, respected Labour Members of Parliament tabled the new clauses? The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) should not sell himself short, as he is a respected member of the Committee and very knowledgeable on information technology and energy. I listen with a great deal of interest and respect to what he has to say and what he recommends. I am with him on so many of these issues, as he knows. I have supported him on the aims that he wants to achieve. The fact that we have managed to get him to squeak a vote in favour of a proposal only once is by the bye. Now that he has decided to go beyond the line once, who knows? We may get him to do it a second time. 
 It hurts me to say this, but I believe that the new clauses were tabled because, among Labour Members of Parliament and perhaps others, particularly Conservative Members, there is a lack of trust in the Government. What is in the Bill and what will the Bill achieve? The Committee will be delighted to hear that I will not go through the various aspects of the Bill line by line, but you will agree, Mr. O'Brien—actually, you have to be neutral and above all these things. I do not know about everyone else, but I thought that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were 
 shocked by the cavalier fashion in which the Minister simply wiped out clause 1. Suddenly, it was gone; forget it. There is no such responsibility for the Secretary of State. Let me remind the Committee of what the clause said: 
 ''The Secretary of State shall have a duty to ensure the integrity and security of electricity and gas supply.'' 
When we came to clause 2, we asked whether there could be targets that might be matched for each area of renewables to see how they are getting on, so that we could reach the 10 per cent. target by 2010. The rest of us are as one on that—there is no disagreement—but the Minister disagreed. 
 When we wanted to support clause 3 on the annual report on energy efficiency—

Bill O'Brien: Order. Far be it from me to want to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, but he is straying from new clause 3. I ask him, given his wide experience, to stick with the business before the Committee.

Richard Page: I stand duly chastised by you, Mr. O'Brien, but in fact, I was going to go back through these points, because the very reason that responsible, senior Labour members of the Committee have tabled these new clauses is that there is a failure in other parts of the Bill to achieve what their new clauses seek to achieve.
 If Ministers had not wiped out clauses 1, 2 and 3 in a cavalier fashion to start with, I wonder whether hon. Members would have tabled these new clauses. I was producing examples, Mr. O'Brien, to show why they have been tabled. It is hard for me to think my way into the brain of a Labour Member of Parliament—it is a real leap into the dark, the unknown and certainly the void—but I believe that Government Members have tabled the new clauses because some original clauses were wiped out with no feeling or thought whatever. Why do they want to incorporate the targets and activities of the Carbon Trust? 
 The aim of clause 3—to report the 
''savings from domestic energy efficiency of 5 MtC per annum''— 
was wiped out. I can understand why new clause 3 aims to incorporate the Carbon Trust, because to do so would return us to those targets that we all wanted in the first place. That is why I spoke as I did, Mr. O'Brien. I made those remarks in a clumsy and inefficient fashion, and you were quite right to reprimand me. I hope that I have explained myself, and if I am not back in your good books I hope also that I have not incurred any opprobrium for the future. 
 My feeling is that if all the measures in these new clauses were in the Bill, hon. Members would not have tabled them. They felt it necessary to table them because they have nagging doubts that those targets and aims are not in the Bill. I am being absolutely serious on that point; I am worried that the Government have arranged the Bill so that they can weasel out of any commitment to achieving the energy efficiency that we all want. 
 Of all that I have said, I would like to put those last two sentences in heavy type and underline them, because I genuinely believe that that is the reason 
 behind these various proposals. I have every sympathy with what hon. Members are trying to achieve with them, and the Minister will have to work quite hard to convince me that the aims of new clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 can be achieved through the operation of the Bill. It does not matter to me, as I am just one of an at-risk breed—a Conservative Member of Parliament—but he has to convince three colleagues, and if he does not do so, who knows? Maybe some amendments will be tabled on Report to try to redress the situation.

Nigel Griffiths: Let me help the hon. Gentleman by speaking in words of one syllable and explaining clearly to him why my hon. Friends have tabled these new clauses, even if he does not understand: they care passionately about the environment, have long championed renewables, have shaped Government policy in this area and care about ensuring that this country's energy supply is both safeguarded and, just as importantly, derived as far as possible from renewables. We must not squander the future of our energy supplies, but leave energy available from which future generations can benefit.
 My hon. Friends were instrumental in shaping Government policy in this respect, and I hope to offer them reassurance. We have established the Renewables Advisory Board, and I can assure them that the Carbon Trust plays a key part in that board and in shaping the critical agenda it takes on. It includes other appropriate bodies, as well as other Government bodies and devolved Administrations, and it provides expert advice to us on renewables issues. 
 The commitment of the DTI and the Government to renewables is second to none: as well as £117 million of capital grants to support the round 1 offshore wind farms developments, we are supporting other marine technologies.

Laurence Robertson: Obsessed.

Nigel Griffiths: The Opposition may be obsessed with wind farms, but they should consider marine technologies such as the wave and tidal research and development programme, which has assisted a number of UK companies and has already led to a number of full-scale prototype devices. I understand that such progress has established the UK as a clear world leader in that area.
 I pay tribute to my constituent, Professor Stephen Salter, who from the 1960s, at the department of mechanical engineering at Kings buildings, was one of the pioneers of wave power. I am sure that he joins me in taking some satisfaction from the fact that we have managed to progress that agenda after years, if not decades, of stagnation. 
 These new clauses are not being rejected because we doubt the sincerity of my hon. Friends or because we think that their proposals are impractical, but we believe that the purpose of new clause 3, for example—to set up a renewable energy authority—is, if not redundant, certainly largely duplicated by the Renewables Advisory Board and other bodies that are in place. 
 We believe that the Government have a strategy to cover the renewables energy issues that concern us all. That is the purpose of new clause 6, in placing a duty on the Renewables Advisory Board. The other new clauses would give the body the powers to carry out other functions. This is a coherent set of new clauses, but I believe that the Government are addressing each of the issues covered in a proportionate way and with a commitment that I hope my hon. Friends applaud. 
 My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services is committed to that agenda. I know that he has met my hon. Friends on a number of occasions to take on board their concerns and positive suggestions. I believe that in resisting new clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6, we are not rejecting elements of the proposals as we have incorporated them firmly in the Bill. I hope that that reassurance means that my hon. Friends will not press their new clauses for inclusion.

Desmond Turner: I thank the Minister for those remarks. He is quite right in his assessment of the motives of those who tabled the new clauses, which are not meant to be deeply critical of the Government, but he must understand that we will never be satisfied: one cannot have too much progress. The support of the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire is most appreciated—at least the serious parts of it. I remind him, however, that whatever any of us may have said about the DTI in expressing the feeling that it could do more with greater urgency, the legacy left by the previous Government was that the DTI had hardly heard of renewable energy. It certainly had not heard of marine technologies, and dismissed them as an unworkable, unrealistic solution of no interest whatever.
 I am confident that had the political colour of Government not changed in the glorious year of 1997, things would have gone on in much the same way. However, I fully accept what the Minister said, that the DTI is organising things and that the Carbon Trust is involved. The Committee felt that the Carbon Trust lacked urgency, so the point of the proposal is to bind things together and give it a real kick. It does not need a new structure to do that. If the Government are sufficiently determined, they can do so without the structure, but it would make it easier. The three policy elements that I set out were of a piece: the fiscal regime would have enhanced the capital flow through the renewable energy authority, enabling it to do more and to do it faster. 
 If I am being critical of the Government, it is because we will never be satisfied with the progress; we want more. The targets, which are technically feasible and extremely realistic, will not be achieved unless better mechanisms are installed, but they could be exceeded with sufficient determination. Given the imperative of climate change, we cannot go too fast. I will not press the new clause to a Division, but I want Ministers to think seriously about the motives behind it and to be prepared to think radically about energy policy, so that mechanisms are in place to deliver what 
 we want. Even Opposition Members are genuine in sharing our desires. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14 - Compliance with community law

'In section 3A of the 1989 Act (principal objective and general duties), after subsection (5A) (which is inserted by section 174), insert—
 ''(5B) In carrying out their respective functions under this Part in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section the Secretary of State and the Authority must each have regard to the obligation to comply with Community law, in particular the provisions of Directive 2003/54/EC.
 (5C) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (5B), where any document provides for charges to be levied for access to and use of any transmission system, the Authority shall have the duty to ensure that those charges are proportionate and applied in a non-discriminatory manner and, in pursuance of this duty, can require the system operator to modify those charges accordingly.''.'.—[Anne Picking.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Anne Picking: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I hope that it will not shock the Committee if I say that I am sick and fed up with hearing about renewables. I support the balanced energy policy that ensures the security of supply and safety. Although there is a place for renewables, there is also a place for other sources of energy. In that respect, my constituency has a diversity that is second to none. 
 My concern is about transmission charging, and the new clause reflects the intent of the directive on the revised internal market for electricity, which will come into force this summer. The directive states: 
 ''Regulatory authorities shall have the authority to require transmission and distribution operators, if necessary to modify the terms, conditions, tariffs . . . To ensure that they are proportionate and applied in a non-discriminatory manner.'' 
Before I proceed, I should declare that I have a constituency interest in the issue, which the proposal would resolve. There are two large generating stations in my constituency: Scottish Power's Cockenzie power station and British Energy's Torness power station. 
 The Minister will be aware that although generators in Scotland support the introduction of BETTA and the access to a UK-wide market that it will provide, they are deeply concerned about the impact of the proposals to charge generators for access to the GB transmission network. Essentially, that would mean extending the existing system of locational charging, which currently applies in England and Wales, to Scotland. The impact will be a rise in transmission charges for generators in Scotland to more than four times the current level on day one of BETTA. We know that because the National Grid Company has already published indicative charges for the new system. 
 To put that in context, Cockenzie power station will see its charges increase by approximately £10 million. Both Cockenzie and Torness have long track records of providing high-quality employment in East Lothian. Cockenzie is a large coal-fired station that is coming to the end of its life, particularly as it faces pressures from the introduction of emissions trading and the large combustion plant directive. Despite that, Scottish Power believes that the plant has a number of years left in it and is trying innovative methods of improving the viability of the plant, such as a trial to examine the feasibility of burning sawdust residue along with coal. However, those efforts may be in vain if massive increases in transmission charges are heaped on top of the pressures that the station already faces. We could have a long debate about whether extending locational transmission charges to Scotland is appropriate at all. However, regardless of the method used to calculate charges, surely we can agree that an increase in charges to more than four times their current level overnight is neither proportionate nor non-discriminatory, as the directive states it must be. 
 Surely we can also agree that it is vital that someone has clear responsibility for ensuring that the transmission charging system is compliant with the directive. My new clause seeks to do exactly that by making it clear that Ofgem has a responsibility to ensure that, in its view, charges are proportionate and non-discriminatory. If nothing else, accepting the new clause will give generators in Scotland the comfort of knowing that there is a duty on the regulator to take a clear view on this issue. 
 The Minister's likely response may be that the provision is within the internal market for the electricity directive so there should be no need for it to be in the Bill. If that is the case, why is it not clear who has responsibility for addressing the issue? If he will not accept the new clause, will he state how the Government will ensure that they comply with that aspect of the directive? 
 The Minister may also say that although it is true that transmission charges will rise substantially in Scotland, BETTA will be financially neutral overall for Scottish Power and the Scottish and Southern Energy Group. If that is true, the impact for the big electricity companies of transmission charges will be offset by the socialisation of the England to Scotland interconnector. However, those charges have acted as a barrier to trade in the electricity market since its introduction. Therefore, it does not seem fair to replace one set of unfair charges with another.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian on so eloquently moving her amendment. I regret that hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) is not here today, but I am sure that she will get support from her other hon. Friends. From the thrust of her remarks, she seems to be saying, as I have been arguing, that transmission charges in Scotland will go up, which is in direct contrast with what the Minister has been saying. Article 23(4) of the directive to which the hon. Lady referred states:
 ''Regulatory authorities shall have the authority to require transmission and distribution system operators, if necessary, to modify the terms, conditions, tariffs . . . to ensure that they are proportionate and applied in a non-discriminatory manner''. 
How does the Minister respond to the proposed new clause? Does he feel that it will strengthen or weaken the Bill? 
 The remaining part of part 4 includes a power to enable Scottish Ministers to direct GEMA to pay surplus revenue arising under the fossil fuel levy in Scotland into the Scottish consolidated fund. Does the Minister accept that the transmission charges are to go up? The hon. Lady used the example of the Cockenzie power station. Will he accept her argument that the Bill needs to enable Ofgem to direct a change in the charging method?

Calum MacDonald: I wish to say a brief word in support of my hon. Friend's new clause. She rightly says that this is a matter of immediate concern to the non-renewables sector in Scotland. As we discovered in our debate on clause 181, it will also be a matter of concern to the renewables sector in Scotland 10 years after the sunset provision comes into force. It should therefore concern not only those of us who represent the stations that will be affected by the new charging regime in Scotland, but everyone who wants to see renewables take off in the north of Scotland and who worries that locational charges might act as a disincentive.
 I am told by Scottish and Southern, which provides for the north of Scotland, that whereas it currently pays transmission charges of £6 per kilowatt connected, in future it will pay £16 per kilowatt connected for non-renewables. Presumably it will also face a similar increase for the renewables sector in 10 years' time when the sunset provision comes into force. That increase is a considerable hike in price and it causes concern. 
 Could the Minister explain why the Government feel that locational charging is the correct route to take and that the English system should be applied in Scotland, rather than the reverse? After all, the Scottish system—the postage stamp principle—is applied almost entirely throughout the European Union, with the exception of Scandinavia. If he could tell us what he understands by the terms ''proportionate'' and ''non-discriminatory'', which are contained in the European directives, it would be a useful guide for the industry and for us. 
 The Minister will be aware that Scottish Power is still deep in discussions with Ofgem about how locational charging will impact in practice and what the final figures will be. It would be useful to know what the final court of appeal will be for that argument. What is the appeal procedure if Scottish Power remains dissatisfied with the terms proposed? Does Ofgem have the final say or does Scottish Power have to go to the Secretary of State? Is there another process of review? It would be helpful if the Minister said something about that as well. 
 To reiterate, this is a matter of major concern for Scottish Power and the non-renewable sector in Scotland. My worry is that it will be a matter concern for the renewable sector as well over the next 10 years, because of the sunset provision in clause 181.

Nigel Griffiths: I am very grateful for the detailed way in which my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian and for Western Isles set out some fundamental issues that the new clause covers.
 The new clause would require the Secretary of State to comply with European Community law and the authority—in this case Ofgem—to ensure that any charges for access to and use of the transmission system are proportionate and non-discriminatory. The new clause would give Ofgem the power to require that such charges be modified if those requirements were not met. 
 The new clause would also import part of an EU directive to primary legislation, which I am advised is unnecessary. The Secretary of State is already required to comply with European Community law in relation to all activities for which she is responsible. Equally, EC law binds Ofgem, which, I am advised, could not lawfully sign off a transmission charging system that was anything other than proportionate and non-discriminatory. 
 Informed by the points that my hon. Friends have made, we are considering our compliance with the directive to which new clause refers. We believe that we are compliant with that provision, but intend to consult on aspects of it. That consultation will include this particular issue. I am concerned to ensure that locational charging, as against postage charging, does not force up consumer prices. I know my hon. Friends are concerned about that.

Desmond Turner: The rationale for choosing the locational charging system instead of the postage stamp system has not been set out. I am quite convinced that both systems are workable in terms of getting investment in the grid. Locational charging is not required to get investment in remote parts of the grid, so can my hon. Friend explain why the Government and Ofgem have come down on the side of locational as opposed to postage stamp charging?

Nigel Griffiths: Yes, of course. I am advised that the case for cost-reflective pricing means ensuring that generators and suppliers take into account the costs that they impose on the transmission system when choosing where to locate. Ofgem's aim is to ensure that an efficient transmission system is delivered at the least cost. Ofgem's concern is that if a generator could locate anywhere and still be charged the same price for using the transmission system, the overall cost of the transmission system would increase. Ultimately, such increases would be passed on to the consumer.
 I am advised that Ofgem is concerned about postage stamp charging because it would ensure that some users of the transmission system subsidised much larger costs imposed by others. Given that private companies are involved, Ofgem is concerned about why private companies should subsidise other private companies in such a way. There is no social reason for 
 doing so—that is not the case in the postal sector, however—provided that electricity prices are maintained at levels that are viable for consumer and business needs. 
 The consultation, which I mentioned before, will take place on aspects of the EU directive on the internal market for electricity, and on article 23(4) in particular.

Bill O'Brien: I call Anne Picking.

Anne McIntosh: I am really upset by some of the names that I have been called in this Committee, but I will not take it personally. I would rather be called the latter than the former, which was Anne Robinson. I hope that the hon. Member for East Lothian will take it as a compliment.
 Are the Government not very late in implementing directive 2003/54/EC? In spite of that, is the hon. Member for East Lothian, in moving the new clause, not still in time? A number of Government Members have requested an answer, which has not yet been forthcoming, on why the Government have uniquely chosen to go down the location charging route rather than the postage stamp charging route, and what the implications of that are.

Nigel Griffiths: I do not believe that we are facing infraction proceedings or anything that would follow particularly late implementation of article 23(4) of the directive. In terms of implementation, we are consulting on some key areas. If we conclude in the light of the new directive that a change is required to enable Ofgem to require that transmission charges are modified to make them proportionate, I can assure the Committee that we will implement such a change through regulations under the European Communities Act 1972, not through primary legislation.
 In response to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian, I believe that we are already compliant with most provisions of the directive, which is to be implemented by 1 July. We may be slightly late, but as I said earlier I do not believe that we will be substantially late or will face infraction proceedings over article 23(4). As I have said, we are consulting on aspects of the directive, so that what we implement in UK law is helpful and appropriate to electricity suppliers and consumers in Britain. 
 My hon. Friends have raised serious issues. I will get Ofgem to set out to them the case that it has made for locational charging over postage charging. I hope that we can secure their agreement to withdrawing new clause 14.

Anne Picking: I am particularly reassured about the consultation, and given that I am a disciplined Back Bencher and I believe in collective responsibility, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Column Number: 526

New Clause 24Recovery of gas charges etc.

Recovery of gas charges etc.

'For paragraph 7 of Schedule 2B (recovery of gas charges etc.)of the Gas Act 1986 substitute—
 ''7(1) Where a consumer has not, within the requisite period, paid all charges due in respect of the supply of gas to the consumer's premises, or to any premises previously owned or occupied by him, the relevant supplier may make arrangements to obtain payment for ongoing consumption and for the recovery of debt through one of the following mechanisms—
(a) installation of a prepayment meter;
(b) direct deductions from Income Support or Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance;
(c) any other debt recovery arrangement that may be authorised by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority.
 (2) The power of a supplier under sub-paragraph (1) to install a prepayment meter may not be exercised—
(a) as respects any amount that is disputed by the consumer, and
(b) unless no fewer than seven working days' notice have been given to the occupier of the premises of the intention to install a prepayment meter.
 (3) In this paragraph the 'requisite period' means a period of 28 days after the supplier has made a demand in writing for payment of charges due.''.'.—[Brian White.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Brian White: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I began this Committee by pointing out that security of supply had a demand side aspect and I conclude it by saying that energy companies have a role in achieving the Government's fuel poverty strategy. We touched on the matter in our debate on clause 177—I thought that this new clause might have been considered then—but I am happy that this debate will conclude our proceedings, because it serves to remind us that energy is a universal and essential service. 
 Ofgem has a duty to develop codes of practice in a number of areas, including the most efficient use of supply, which we discussed in the Committee; methods of payment for fuel; dealing with customers in difficulty; the use of prepayment meters, which was debated under clause 177; and services for customers who are of pensionable age, disabled, chronically sick, blind or deaf. The codes of practice contain detailed procedures that companies should adopt when consumers are unable to pay gas or electricity bills and set out a range of payment options available to assist in budgeting and to help in debt recovery. 
 The most crucial factor is the customer's ability to pay. In the 1980s, there were 60,000 gas and 100,000 electricity disconnections. In 2003, there were 15,900 gas and 1,360 electricity disconnections. Those figures are for Great Britain, because in Northern Ireland there has been no disconnection since 1999. There is also the issue of self-disconnection—when people are unable to charge prepayment cards or tokens. There have been major improvements in that area too, with the development of sophisticated and sensitive policies on emergency credit. Also, prepayment meters are 
 calibrated to help to guarantee companies both the payment of current consumption and the recovery of debt for the 2 million gas and 3.5 million electricity consumers who use such meters. 
 The licence conditions do not allow disconnection during the winter months, but when people are disconnected in the other seasons, there is no policy to enable them to be reconnected during the winter months. During the recent consultation, which was referred to earlier, questions were raised as to why the presence of a non-pensioner occupant in the property allows disconnections to occur. We do not do that with water, so why do we do it with energy? 
 The consultation paper has encountered an adverse reaction, not least from the National Consumer Council and from others in the energy field. They pointed out both the anachronistic language, which refers to infirmity, and the proposal that disconnections should continue. There is no rational reason for putting the other occupants of a property at risk, irrespective of the circumstances of the bill payer. The paper also refers to social services and how they can sort things out, without taking on board the fact that they are already overworked. I do not understand how social services will be able to either arrange for the debt to be repaid or broker a deal. 
 This is the nub of my new clause: I can well understand why companies want to retain disconnections, but I cannot understand why Ofgem and the Government would want to keep them. A legal ban on disconnections from fuel supply would encourage alternative tariffs as well as the development of different payment methods and schemes that we could build on, such as Fuel Direct. 
 The debate's focus on defining vulnerability is a good example of why we need to stop disconnections. I thank the Minister and the Government for moving away from the stale old argument that disconnections are required to keep people in check. That was the argument of the 1980s and the early 1990s, but I am glad that the Government have moved away from it. The approach that we took to the Water Act 2003 is the right way forward. 
 In conclusion, let me make it clear that the new clause refers to domestic customers. I am sure that it is defectively drafted and that it would have loads of unintended consequences, so I shall not press it to a vote. However, I want the Minister to take on board the spirit of what I have said and to recognise that there is widespread concern about the proposals that emerged from the consultation exercise.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having moved his new clause. Can the Minister tell us how the Government define a vulnerable customer? The National Consumer Council has put forward what I think is a workable definition, and I wonder whether the Government are minded to accept it.

Nigel Griffiths: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having moved the new clause and on his great success last year with his private Member's Bill, which many
 of us welcome. I agree that disconnections for debt should be minimised. Indeed, I hope that they can be eliminated, as they have been in Northern Ireland. He welcomed the reduction from an average of 250 people per constituency being cut off—which was an absolute disgrace—to 30, but that is still unacceptable. That is why the Government are doing more to reduce it further.
 Appropriate safeguards have to be built in to the disconnection arrangements, especially where vulnerable customers are affected. This morning, we heard the example of the elderly couple whose gas supply was cut off and who died of hypothermia. The Government believe that a ban on disconnections could increase debt levels and the costs associated with recovering debt. We are also concerned that a number of people would be forced into having prepayment meters as the only alternative to debt, when many hon. Members have spoken forcefully against any increase in such meters and the associated costs.

Brian White: The Minister is arguing that prepayment meters are the only way forward. There is a range of options to consider, and prepayment meters, properly calibrated with emergency credit on them, can play a useful role. Disconnections have no role to play.

Nigel Griffiths: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that that is only one method of payment. Of course, it might be appropriate in some circumstances. However, I know from constituency experience that unfortunate individuals facing the threat of being cut off generally have other problems too, so it is important and appropriate to involve social services and others in counselling and working with them; they should not be left alone.
 I also have concerns about self-disconnection. What can follow from self-disconnection is a disconnection from society and from the services that can help people, whether their problems are with drugs—we all have such people in our constituencies—or with factors less linked with poverty than with other circumstances that can affect their lives. 
 I am pleased to alert the Committee to the fact that Ofgem has, with Ministers' encouragement, undertaken extensive discussions with suppliers about disconnection. Those have focused on improving the processes for identifying and dealing with vulnerable customers, and clarifying procedures for notifying the relevant agencies when such customers are in difficulties with payments. 
 Proposals were put forward in April for improved industry-wide arrangements; I am informed that, as far as possible, they will ensure that valuable customers do not face disconnection in future. It is obviously important that we monitor that carefully. 
 The trend has been good. The figures speak for themselves, with a massive decrease in the number of disconnections—somewhere in the order of a sixth or seventh of the number of disconnections of only a few years ago. We have the good example of the elimination of disconnections in Northern Ireland, so 
 it is clear that the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East and other hon. Members are being taken forward by the Department of Trade and Industry, and by the regulator and the electricity suppliers. 
 The change has been made in a way that has a great element of social inclusion. Those customers who do not have difficulty in paying their bills regularly—they have incomes that are adequate and lifestyles that match their incomes and they therefore do not suffer fuel poverty and are not threatened by disconnection—have been less sympathetic than my hon. Friend. They might not appreciate the need for us all to care about the more vulnerable. The trend towards eliminating disconnections is good. As I said this morning, disconnections were accepted almost as a matter of routine when I was a member of an electricity consultative committee. I never accepted that. My heart is very much with my hon. Friend. 
 Ofgem is taking steps, prompted by my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. With everything moving in the right direction, and with the Northern Ireland example for us to emulate, I hope that I have persuaded my hon. Friend not to press his new clause.

Brian White: I welcome the Minister's commitment to monitoring. I have concerns about that lingering clinging to the comfort blanket of disconnections—as if it makes a difference. We live in a grown-up world; we do not need that comfort blanket. I urge the Minister in his discussions with Ofgem to take that final step. We have done so much good work; only one more step is needed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Nigel Griffiths: I thank you, Mr. O'Brien, for your excellent chairing of the Committee. On behalf of the Committee, I also thank your co-Chairmen, Mr. Sayeed and Mr. Gale. I am grateful to members of the Committee, from all parties, for their contributions. I am grateful also to the Clerks, the attendants, the police and Hansard. I thank the staff at the Department of Trade and Industry for their excellent vigilance. I extend warm words also to the hon. Members for Tewkesbury and for Vale of York, to those who speak for the Liberal Democrats and to others for allowing such well informed debates.
 I do not know whether it was a threat or a promise when the Opposition Whip said at the beginning of our proceedings that he would be a speaking member of the Committee. He failed to tell us that he would be speaking not in the Room but outside—in the Tea 
 Room and elsewhere. None the less, his attendance and his usual Whip's reticence have facilitated the work of the Committee, and I am grateful to him for that. With that, and with a word of thanks to you, Mr. O'Brien, I hope that the Bill will proceed as appropriate.

Laurence Robertson: As the Committee knows, in general, we support the Bill. We have done our best to add to the improvements that were made in another place, and we look forward to further debate on Report.
 May I thank you, Mr. O'Brien, and your fellow Chairmen, Mr. Sayeed and Mr. Gale, for your expert guidance and good humour, and Mr. Lee, the Clerk, and his staff for their help? I should also like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of York, for South-West Hertfordshire, for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) for their guidance and good humour and for the hard work that they have put into the Bill, much of which is complicated. I am grateful to them. I also pay tribute to Liberal Democrat Members, who have contributed greatly, as has the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who has, all alone, provided us with a great deal of worthwhile information. 
 May I also pay tribute to the Labour rebels, who have made the Committee very interesting? I look forward to hearing their contributions at later stages. I am sure that they will not lose their voices, and will continue to promote the beliefs that they hold so sincerely. I thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has dealt with some of the Bill. I think that he would acknowledge that the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services has probably handled the greater part of it, which is only right, given his brief, and I should like to pay tribute to him in his absence. He showed his customary degree of courtesy and friendliness, and was a pleasure to work with. I thank him as well.

Andrew Stunell: I am delighted to add my thanks and congratulations to you and your fellow Chairmen, Mr. O'Brien, for having steered us through what was not too stormy a Committee stage. I should like to thank the two Ministers. They have not always had the easiest of tasks, with the Opposition in front of them and the enemy behind them, but they have successfully steered the Bill to its next stage. Some of us will have more to say about it on Report—it is still work in progress.
 I very much appreciated working with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and his team, and with the hon. Member for Angus. We receive a lot of support from our officials and the Clerks, and I should not like to exclude them from my thanks. I look forward to our debates on Report.

Bill O'Brien: On behalf of my co-Chairmen and myself, I thank members of the Committee for the co-operation that we have received in our sittings. The proceedings have not been difficult to conduct because members have recognised the rules of debate, which
 has been helpful to us as Chairmen. We have, of course, been guided by the Clerk, so I should like to make special mention of him and thank him for his co-operation and guidance on amendments and new clauses that have been submitted and put on the amendment paper. We also owe special thanks to the 
 Hansard staff, who work hard on our behalf to ensure that the record is correct. It is only right to thank them and all concerned with their work.
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at one minute to Five o'clock.